Myth - busted

Seaplane Pilot · 04-24-2007, 09:05 AM

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/04/e..._truck_bi.html

Watching Mythbusters last night - an episode about a go-fast boat splitting in two after hitting a piling at 25 mph. Myth was busted at 25 & 45 mph. The photo of this boat has been used on this forum during the speed limit debate; therefore, in the interest of full disclosure, I think it's only fair to announce that the myth has been.....BUSTED!

SIKSUKR · 04-24-2007, 09:29 AM

Actually,I think your busted Seaplane Pilot.Watching Myth Busters?Just kidding,I watched that episode too.

Seaplane Pilot · 04-24-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Actually,I think your busted Seaplane Pilot.Watching Myth Busters?Just kidding,I watched that episode too.

Great minds think alike SS!

Kamper · 04-24-2007, 12:08 PM

Has any one ever learned how that boat got in that situation?

lakershaker · 04-24-2007, 12:52 PM

Makes you wonder what happened to Temporary Insanity I...

codeman671 · 04-24-2007, 02:09 PM

Funny, I have seen that picture thrown out there a few times in speed limit debates...Another myth, just like the need for a speed limit !

Rattlesnake Gal · 04-24-2007, 02:32 PM

During this episode they towed the boat on a trailer and tried to get it to hit the post, without luck, so myth busted. But… if this myth were tested in the water as the photo indicates, wouldn’t the water add resistance to keep the boat from bouncing off the piling? I suspect we may see this myth revisited.

WinnChill · 04-24-2007, 03:07 PM

I saw that one too--great episode. I can't put my finger on it but I just feel there could be a few more variables in play to make it a possibililty. They heard it was done at 25mph which does sound far-fetched. I dunno, maybe if it was nosing a bit down into the pylon perhaps off of a small wave it may have been able to get just the right angle.

Oh well, that pic is a bad day either way.

Cheers,
Cameron

kchace · 04-24-2007, 03:11 PM

I believe you're right. I feel there were several issues with the way they conducted the test - the one you bring up being one. I feel they seemed to have a much more glancing hit than the boat that was impaled. Also, the 'subject' boat would also have weighed a few thousand pounds less without engines and fuel, etc. This would have affected its momentum and resistance to changing direction.

This is one episode that was more 'fun' and 'eye candy' than reality.

Ken

WinnChill · 04-24-2007, 03:16 PM

You're from Brookline eh? I'm right around the corner in Amherst (good friends in Brookline). We're first time boat owners and planning on staging out of the Wolfeboro/Moultonborough area--more scouting the next couple of weeks.

Don't mean to hijack the thread--just sayin hi.

Cheers,
Cameron

LIforrelaxin · 04-24-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Gal

During this episode they towed the boat on a trailer and tried to get it to hit the post, without luck, so myth busted. But… if this myth were tested in the water as the photo indicates, wouldn’t the water add resistance to keep the boat from bouncing off the piling? I suspect we may see this myth revisited.

I missed this episode so I will have to catch it in repeats. But there are many factors from what you say here that would effect the out come. If enough of us write in though, I am sure they will revisit it.

Gavia immer · 04-24-2007, 03:59 PM

For those of us who didn't see the program, it would be nice to have a description of how it was done. Apparently, they didn't tow it through the water, which would have added sideways resistance to bouncing off, as RG writes.

From what has been written here so far, it didn't have an engine in it. How that qualifies as a real test is hard to figure out. The photo looks real, and wasn't done at a slow speed. Will mythbusters be busted themselves?

Mee-n-Mac · 04-24-2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Gal

During this episode they towed the boat on a trailer and tried to get it to hit the post, without luck, so myth busted. But… if this myth were tested in the water as the photo indicates, wouldn’t the water add resistance to keep the boat from bouncing off the piling? I suspect we may see this myth revisited.

"Mee" had the same objection. They needed to test in-water or at least show the resistance to lateral movement was the same as if it were in-water. Also I wonder just how freak an occurance this might have been. I think they need to crash some more boats just to be sure !

Alton Mumma · 04-24-2007, 10:10 PM

I agree, this one needs to be revisited, in the water.

In the small scale, they were able to split one scale boat. They had no success when they pulled the small scale boats into the piling, but when one of them simply grabbed onto a boat and slammed it into the piling, it spit. Because he had a hold on it, it didn't bounce off like all the other boats. If you factor water into the large scale tests I bet the results would change.

ApS · 04-25-2007, 05:15 AM

Other views back at the marina:

It was "Temporary Insanity's" skipper who claimed a 25-MPH impact speed. "Build-Team" attempted to refute that.

The "Discovery Community" website isn't happy with this test, either: "Bad, Build-Team, BAD!"

Quote:

"They have also excluded loading.
No motor, no gear, no passengers...
all the factors that would serve to drive the boat onto the post were omitted from the test.

I also disagree with their estimate of the impact point.
It's almost dead on the nose and not from the side.

Once again, the Build Team over simplifies and under tests."
http://community.discovery.com/eve/f...7701992688/p/2

Dave R · 04-25-2007, 10:42 AM

It's funny that they dropped the boat at the end and the bow area was really demolished. IIRC, the boat only dropped about 30 to 40 feet and therefore could not have been going more than 20-25 MPH when it hit the ground. If hitting a blunt surface at 25 MPH (with no engines attached) could do that much damage, it's quite possible that a point load at the same speed could cut into the boat as deeply as it did, especially if the boat in question was built differently (and had engines). They were way off base on that one.

Seaplane Pilot · 04-25-2007, 12:48 PM

I say we conduct our own test...I'll pay for the steel piling and all the beer we can drink while we watch the test. Only one catch: We are going to conduct the test with the boats that cause way more damage and are far more dangerous than go-fast boats. Care to guess what kind of boats these are?

SIKSUKR · 04-25-2007, 01:14 PM

Hey SP,that's my new 10 person PWC.Back off or I'll beach that thing next to the T-bar!

Seaplane Pilot · 04-25-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Hey SP,that's my new 10 person PWC.Back off or I'll beach that thing next to the T-bar!

Have at it SS... While you're at it bring the dancing girls too!

PaulS · 04-25-2007, 09:29 PM

I posted a picture in photopost of the same boat. I don't remember where on the web I found the picture, but it seems to prove the first picture.

jrc · 04-26-2007, 07:44 AM

This is reported to be the same boat at haul out.

To me, the original picture looks like a smaller boat than the boat in these two pictures. But it could just be the angle or lens.

What myth did they bust? That the accident occured? Or that the speed of the accident was only 25MPH?

It does seem like a look of damage for 25MPH. Something about these pictures just doesn't look right. I suspect staging.

ITD · 04-26-2007, 08:45 AM

I haven't seen the show yet so take what I say with a grain of salt. But I would suspect the test would be a lot different with the weight of the engines and fuel (which could add up to 3000# to the test). Also I would suspect that the original collision occurred with the engines running and producing substantial power. That boat at 25 mph would be just up on plane, requiring much power to keep it moving. Obviously the collision was unintended and the operator, even if he was at the controls after hitting, would take a second or two to throttle down. I would think the force from the engines would be enough to cause more damage than just a coasting boat hitting the pier. Finally I think it would take substantially more force to move the bow of a boat travelling through the water off course than it would to move a boat travelling on a trailer off course. I don't think the test as described in these posts is valid. I think the Mythbusters are busted and need to do this one over again.

Seaplane Pilot · 04-26-2007, 10:15 AM

The way the damage occured to the boat in the photo just does not seem probable. I'm no accident reconstruction engineer, but it looks too perfect. I would think that a boat hitting a piling head-on would cause more of a blow-out effect than a straight cut out as shown in the picture. I too think this was a staged photo.

Rose · 04-26-2007, 11:40 AM

There's much discussion on the Discovery Channel message board about this Mythbusters episode and the accident in general...it would appear this is not a doctored photo and the accident really did occur.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/f...7701992688/p/2

John A. Birdsall · 04-26-2007, 02:30 PM

I think they should do a program on GFBL going over the witches. Nah that would not be nice.,

Alton Mumma · 04-26-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote:

That the accident occured? Or that the speed of the accident was only 25MPH?

jrc, they were trying to bust the fact that that accident happened at only 25mph.

I think they have a lot of work to do if they really want to call it busted. Maybe crash a similar boat, in the water, using a remote system, or something. The Mythbusters usually go so overboard, I was surprised at how little they did with this one.

gtxrider · 04-27-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Gal

During this episode they towed the boat on a trailer and tried to get it to hit the post, without luck, so myth busted. But… if this myth were tested in the water as the photo indicates, wouldn’t the water add resistance to keep the boat from bouncing off the piling? I suspect we may see this myth revisited.

I think going at 25MPH and not hitting dead on the boat would bounce off the piling. Perhaps there would be a dent in the bow but it would not rip the boat apart unless it is tissue paper boat.

ApS · 04-30-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rose

There's much discussion on the Discovery Channel message board about this Mythbusters episode and the accident in general...it would appear this is not a doctored photo and the accident really did occur.
http://community.discovery.com/eve/f...7701992688/p/2

I read all twelve pages of Discovery Channel's "Fansite" this morning, and am convinced that there is no myth to be busted.

It points out that the "myth-busting" was done with the boat on a trailer—which got damaged—absorbing part of the impact intended for the boat. Also, the test was conducted in the rain—which meant the tires hydroplaned, and allowed the boat and trailer to skid sideways.

The original photographer shared several of the other photographs taken that day.

Others:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...o/17530_29.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...o/17530_28.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...o/17530_27.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...o/17530_26.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...o/17530_25.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...o/17530_24.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...o/17530_23.jpg

Very high altitude aerial photo showing crash location, amazingly close to shore. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ntIslandMD.jpg

Anyone notice that www.winnipesaukee.com's Photopost got a mention?

(Page five there).

jrc · 05-02-2007, 09:51 AM

There are two questions:

Did an accident occur? There is plenty of photographic and eye-witness evidence that the boat was impaled on the marker. There is no proof how it got there, but there's no evidence that it was staged. There's also no reason to stage it. For insurance purposes, a sinking would be easier. I'm now convinced the accident occured.

What was the speed? Reportedly, the operator says 25 MPH. Is he credible given the rest of his statement, like blaming lights on a sailboat?

Myth busters tried to stage it at 25 MPH and 45 MPH. Are their results meaningful given all the critiques?

This is the myth and it still needs another look.

Island Girl · 05-02-2007, 11:20 AM

Some pictures show the boat right side up, and others are showing upside down..

Blue Thunder · 05-02-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Girl

Some pictures show the boat right side up, and others are showing upside down..

They are all right side up the way I see them. You MUST be too young for corrective lenses!

BT

Rattlesnake Gal · 05-02-2007, 02:38 PM

For those of you who missed Episode 77: Birds in a Truck, Bifurcated boat, you can catch it again!

May 06, 4:00 pm

May 26, 9:00 pm
May 27, 1:00 am

Belkin · 05-02-2007, 07:50 PM

I am still a little confused as to what myth they are trying to bust:

That a boat could split on a channel marker?

Or

That a boat could split on a channel marker while only going 25 knots?

One thing that is clearly missing is the affect of the water. Hulls are designed to go straight through the water and not sideways. Even if the boat did not hit the channel marker perfectly head on, the flow of the water would prevent it from moving off to the side quickly enough to avoid penetrating the hull. Testing it without having the boat moving through the water is just the wrong approach. If you assume that the boat was moving 25 knots and you also assume that the point of the boat comes to a 60 degree double angle (30 degrees off the center line), the boat would have to pivot and / or slide sideways at 12.5 knots (i.e. sine of 30 degrees = 0.5). Trying to instantly pull the front of boat going forward through the water at 12.5 knots would require a lot of force. Quite possibly, more force than the hull could withstand. Or, I could be all wet.

Alton Mumma · 05-02-2007, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belkin

I am still a little confused as to what myth they are trying to bust:

That a boat could split on a channel marker?

Or

That a boat could split on a channel marker while only going 25 knots?

They did not argue the fact that this accident DID happen, they myth they are trying to bust is the fact that it could happen at 25 mph

I think you're right, testing this myth out of the water was the wrong approach.

Coastal Laker · 05-14-2007, 03:25 PM

I'm just wondering if the operator said he was really going 25 knots or 25 mph when the boat hit the piling. 25 knots is more believable since that is closer to 30 mph which I think would be a more comfortable crusing speed for that kind of boat. I'm just guessing that at 25 mph that boat is not on plane or just barely, maybe even plowing through the water in which case there's the possibility of not seeing the piling at all. Anyone have one of these boats that can share what the planing speed might actually be? I have a hard time thinking this boat was going slower than that for the extent of damage there is. Just wondering.

04-24-2007, 09:05 AM	#1
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 662 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	Myth - busted http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/04/e..._truck_bi.html Watching Mythbusters last night - an episode about a go-fast boat splitting in two after hitting a piling at 25 mph. Myth was busted at 25 & 45 mph. The photo of this boat has been used on this forum during the speed limit debate; therefore, in the interest of full disclosure, I think it's only fair to announce that the myth has been.....BUSTED! Attached Images

04-24-2007, 09:29 AM	#2
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Actually,I think your busted Seaplane Pilot.Watching Myth Busters?Just kidding,I watched that episode too. __________________ SIKSUKR

04-24-2007, 12:52 PM	#5
lakershaker Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Rattlesnake Isl. - Simsbury, CT Posts: 271 Thanks: 90 Thanked 44 Times in 26 Posts	Temporary Insanity II Makes you wonder what happened to Temporary Insanity I...

04-24-2007, 02:32 PM	#7
Rattlesnake Gal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Central NH Posts: 5,252 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 1,447 Thanked 1,349 Times in 475 Posts	We Saw This Mythbuster's Too! During this episode they towed the boat on a trailer and tried to get it to hit the post, without luck, so myth busted. But… if this myth were tested in the water as the photo indicates, wouldn’t the water add resistance to keep the boat from bouncing off the piling? I suspect we may see this myth revisited.

04-24-2007, 10:10 PM	#14
Alton Mumma Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alton NH Posts: 41 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I agree, this one needs to be revisited, in the water. In the small scale, they were able to split one scale boat. They had no success when they pulled the small scale boats into the piling, but when one of them simply grabbed onto a boat and slammed it into the piling, it spit. Because he had a hold on it, it didn't bounce off like all the other boats. If you factor water into the large scale tests I bet the results would change. __________________ Alton Mumma "Living with a toddler is like using a blender without the cover."

04-24-2007, 12:08 PM	#4
Kamper Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Thornton's Ferry Posts: 1,296 Thanks: 67 Thanked 166 Times in 126 Posts	Has any one ever learned how that boat got in that situation?

04-24-2007, 02:09 PM	#6
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,360 Thanks: 209 Thanked 764 Times in 448 Posts	Funny, I have seen that picture thrown out there a few times in speed limit debates...Another myth, just like the need for a speed limit !

04-24-2007, 03:07 PM	#8
WinnChill Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 5 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I saw that one too--great episode. I can't put my finger on it but I just feel there could be a few more variables in play to make it a possibililty. They heard it was done at 25mph which does sound far-fetched. I dunno, maybe if it was nosing a bit down into the pylon perhaps off of a small wave it may have been able to get just the right angle. Oh well, that pic is a bad day either way. Cheers, Cameron

04-24-2007, 03:11 PM	#9
kchace Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Brookline and Moultonborough NH Posts: 100 Thanks: 4 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I believe you're right. I feel there were several issues with the way they conducted the test - the one you bring up being one. I feel they seemed to have a much more glancing hit than the boat that was impaled. Also, the 'subject' boat would also have weighed a few thousand pounds less without engines and fuel, etc. This would have affected its momentum and resistance to changing direction. This is one episode that was more 'fun' and 'eye candy' than reality. Ken

04-24-2007, 03:16 PM	#10
WinnChill Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 5 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	You're from Brookline eh? I'm right around the corner in Amherst (good friends in Brookline). We're first time boat owners and planning on staging out of the Wolfeboro/Moultonborough area--more scouting the next couple of weeks. Don't mean to hijack the thread--just sayin hi. Cheers, Cameron

04-24-2007, 03:59 PM	#12
Gavia immer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 193 Thanks: 21 Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts	For those of us who didn't see the program, it would be nice to have a description of how it was done. Apparently, they didn't tow it through the water, which would have added sideways resistance to bouncing off, as RG writes. From what has been written here so far, it didn't have an engine in it. How that qualifies as a real test is hard to figure out. The photo looks real, and wasn't done at a slow speed. Will mythbusters be busted themselves?

04-25-2007, 10:42 AM	#16
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 2,974 Thanks: 246 Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts	It's funny that they dropped the boat at the end and the bow area was really demolished. IIRC, the boat only dropped about 30 to 40 feet and therefore could not have been going more than 20-25 MPH when it hit the ground. If hitting a blunt surface at 25 MPH (with no engines attached) could do that much damage, it's quite possible that a point load at the same speed could cut into the boat as deeply as it did, especially if the boat in question was built differently (and had engines). They were way off base on that one.

04-25-2007, 12:48 PM	#17
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 662 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	Here's an idea! I say we conduct our own test...I'll pay for the steel piling and all the beer we can drink while we watch the test. Only one catch: We are going to conduct the test with the boats that cause way more damage and are far more dangerous than go-fast boats. Care to guess what kind of boats these are? Attached Images

04-25-2007, 01:14 PM	#18
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Hey SP,that's my new 10 person PWC.Back off or I'll beach that thing next to the T-bar! __________________ SIKSUKR

04-25-2007, 09:29 PM	#20
PaulS Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 55 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	What about this view I posted a picture in photopost of the same boat. I don't remember where on the web I found the picture, but it seems to prove the first picture.

04-26-2007, 07:44 AM	#21
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	These pictures This is reported to be the same boat at haul out. To me, the original picture looks like a smaller boat than the boat in these two pictures. But it could just be the angle or lens. What myth did they bust? That the accident occured? Or that the speed of the accident was only 25MPH? It does seem like a look of damage for 25MPH. Something about these pictures just doesn't look right. I suspect staging.

04-26-2007, 08:45 AM	#22
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,860 Thanks: 461 Thanked 666 Times in 366 Posts	I haven't seen the show yet so take what I say with a grain of salt. But I would suspect the test would be a lot different with the weight of the engines and fuel (which could add up to 3000# to the test). Also I would suspect that the original collision occurred with the engines running and producing substantial power. That boat at 25 mph would be just up on plane, requiring much power to keep it moving. Obviously the collision was unintended and the operator, even if he was at the controls after hitting, would take a second or two to throttle down. I would think the force from the engines would be enough to cause more damage than just a coasting boat hitting the pier. Finally I think it would take substantially more force to move the bow of a boat travelling through the water off course than it would to move a boat travelling on a trailer off course. I don't think the test as described in these posts is valid. I think the Mythbusters are busted and need to do this one over again.

04-26-2007, 10:15 AM	#23
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 662 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	The way the damage occured to the boat in the photo just does not seem probable. I'm no accident reconstruction engineer, but it looks too perfect. I would think that a boat hitting a piling head-on would cause more of a blow-out effect than a straight cut out as shown in the picture. I too think this was a staged photo.

04-26-2007, 11:40 AM	#24
Rose Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 498 Thanks: 62 Thanked 71 Times in 32 Posts	Discovery Channel message board There's much discussion on the Discovery Channel message board about this Mythbusters episode and the accident in general...it would appear this is not a doctored photo and the accident really did occur. http://community.discovery.com/eve/f...7701992688/p/2

04-26-2007, 02:30 PM	#25
John A. Birdsall Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Norwich, CT Posts: 599 Thanks: 27 Thanked 51 Times in 35 Posts	mythbusters revenge I think they should do a program on GFBL going over the witches. Nah that would not be nice.,

05-02-2007, 09:51 AM	#29
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	There are two questions: Did an accident occur? There is plenty of photographic and eye-witness evidence that the boat was impaled on the marker. There is no proof how it got there, but there's no evidence that it was staged. There's also no reason to stage it. For insurance purposes, a sinking would be easier. I'm now convinced the accident occured. What was the speed? Reportedly, the operator says 25 MPH. Is he credible given the rest of his statement, like blaming lights on a sailboat? Myth busters tried to stage it at 25 MPH and 45 MPH. Are their results meaningful given all the critiques? This is the myth and it still needs another look.

05-02-2007, 11:20 AM	#30
Island Girl Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Central MA Posts: 2,352 Thanks: 18 Thanked 535 Times in 179 Posts	Am I missing something here Some pictures show the boat right side up, and others are showing upside down.. __________________ Island Girl ....... Make Lemonade

05-02-2007, 02:38 PM	#32
Rattlesnake Gal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Central NH Posts: 5,252 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 1,447 Thanked 1,349 Times in 475 Posts	Watch it or Put in a Tape! For those of you who missed Episode 77: Birds in a Truck, Bifurcated boat, you can catch it again! May 06, 4:00 pm May 26, 9:00 pm May 27, 1:00 am

05-02-2007, 07:50 PM	#33
Belkin Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 33 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post	What myth is busted? I am still a little confused as to what myth they are trying to bust: That a boat could split on a channel marker? Or That a boat could split on a channel marker while only going 25 knots? One thing that is clearly missing is the affect of the water. Hulls are designed to go straight through the water and not sideways. Even if the boat did not hit the channel marker perfectly head on, the flow of the water would prevent it from moving off to the side quickly enough to avoid penetrating the hull. Testing it without having the boat moving through the water is just the wrong approach. If you assume that the boat was moving 25 knots and you also assume that the point of the boat comes to a 60 degree double angle (30 degrees off the center line), the boat would have to pivot and / or slide sideways at 12.5 knots (i.e. sine of 30 degrees = 0.5). Trying to instantly pull the front of boat going forward through the water at 12.5 knots would require a lot of force. Quite possibly, more force than the hull could withstand. Or, I could be all wet.

05-14-2007, 03:25 PM	#35
Coastal Laker Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In the Beautiful Lakes Region of course! Posts: 130 Thanks: 1 Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts	25 knots or 25 mph? I'm just wondering if the operator said he was really going 25 knots or 25 mph when the boat hit the piling. 25 knots is more believable since that is closer to 30 mph which I think would be a more comfortable crusing speed for that kind of boat. I'm just guessing that at 25 mph that boat is not on plane or just barely, maybe even plowing through the water in which case there's the possibility of not seeing the piling at all. Anyone have one of these boats that can share what the planing speed might actually be? I have a hard time thinking this boat was going slower than that for the extent of damage there is. Just wondering.